An employee at the Missouri Department of Corrections was reassigned to a lower status position not long after confronting a Department captain about his alleged sexual harassment of a co-worker. Was this retaliation?

What happened. An armorer at the Department was informed by a co-worker whom he was dating that she had been sexually harassed by their captain. The armorer confronted the captain in November 2003 but did not report the captain's behavior to superiors.

That same month, a police major, who supervised both the armorer and the captain, discovered that the armorer was not adequately performing the duties of his job. As an armorer, his responsibilities included taking monthly inventories of the armory, and the major discovered that he was not performing the inventories. He also returned several hours late from a mail run that same month.

Two captains--including the one that the armorer had confronted--recommended to the major that the armorer be removed from the armorer position. The major reassigned him to a temporary utility position. The man claimed that the major told him that the reason he was being removed from the armorer position was his bad attitude with the captain. He then reported the captain's alleged sexual harassing behavior to the major.

The man sued the Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment. A federal district court found for the Department, and he appealed to the 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

What the court said. Judges acknowledged that the man's "efforts to stop the harassment of a co-worker is an activity that is protected by Title VII." However, they pointed out that the major made the decision to transfer him before he found out about the confrontation between the armorer and the captain. 

The man said that the captain played a part in his reassignment, noting that he had supplied some of the information justifying the Department's transfer. However, he did not dispute the factual accuracy of the information the captain had supplied. Judges concluded that he offered "nothing beyond speculation" that the Department had retaliated against him for confronting the captain. Culton v. Missouri Department of Corrections, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, No. 07-1307 (2008).

Point to remember: This employer was able to point to a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason--the employee's job performance--for its employment decision.